SfiiJfSfSJffJfEIiSWipfiiit ""f*-" 



I'ilStlB <itbuit">( 













^^ ... 
















,0 % 












> A*^ " " " ♦ <^ 0» 





















'J^ 











0^ *o 

















'o • * 






...- / V^^v^\/ %'^^*/ t^y^'^^'''.^'^ 
















• » 1 






" ' • • • ^v '-o 















THE 



FUGITIVE SLAVE LA¥; 



TRIED BY THE 



OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 



BY 



JOSEPH P. THOMPSON 

Pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle ChurcL 



[reprinted from the new ENGLANDER for NOV., 1850.] 



NEW YORK: 

MARK H. NEWMAN & Co., 199 Bkoapway. 

1850. 






^■■r 






NEW haven: 

PRINTED BY B. L. HAMLEN, 

Printer to Yale College. 



The Scriptural portion of the following argument was first de- 
livered as a discourse in the Broadway Tabernacle, on Sabbath 
evening, Sept. 22nd, and was repeated, by request, on Sabbath 
evening, Oct. 13th. On its first delivery it was prefaced with 
the following remarks, which it may be important to preserve in 
this connection. 

Whatever may be thonght of the lawfulness or the expediency 
of introducing the general subject of slavery into the pulpit, 
there can be no question that the treatment due to fugitives from 
slavery is a legitimate topic for discussion there. That is a sub- 
ject of which the Bible treats, and in making it a subject of dis- 
course I am not preaching politics but am preaching the Gospel; 
applying the principles of the Bible to an important public inter- 
est. The subject legitimately belongs to the pulpit, and politi- 
cians should be careful how they tamper with it, lest they betray 
an ignorance of the principles of Biblical interpretation and of 
the spirit of Christianity, as gross as that ignorance of political 
affairs which they are prone to charge upon ministers of the 
Gospel. The treatment of fugitive slaves has indeed been made 
a political question ; but it was a Biblical question and a question 
of morality long before it was dragged into the arena of politics, 
and it was legislated upon by the King of heaven and earth ages 
before the Congress of the United States had an existence. The 
discussion of it in the church, therefore ; is not to be tabooed by 
the captious cry of 'Politics and the Pulpit.' The claim of 
Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah was made a political ques- 
tion by those who could not or would not comprehend the spirit- 



ual character of his mission, and he was crucified under the pre- 
tense that he was guilty of treason. The disciple is not above 
his master, and the servants of Christ should not be deterred from 
the discussion of any moral .question by the hue and cry of poli- 
ticians. The question before us, is not a political question, but 
a question of Biblical interpretation. 

It is also a practical question. With slavery in general, — ex- 
cept where it exists in territories belonging to the national gov- 
ernment — we of this locality have no direct concern. But the 
treatment of fugitive slaves is with us a personal matter — a ques- 
tion of almost daily interest. In the houses of some who hear 
me, fugitives from slavery are often harbored ; while others are 
accustomed to contribute money to help such fugitives on their 
way. As a pastor, therefore, knowing, or at least suspecting 
such practices to exist among my congregation, it is my duty to 
expound to them the teachings of the word of God respecting 
fugitives from slavery, that those who are accustomed to hide the 
fugitive, or to aid his escape, may be led to desist from this course 
if it is wrong, or may be confirmed in it if it is right. There 
are also many who for the first time are inquiring thoughtfully 
and conscientiously about their duty Vv'ith respect to fugitive 
slaves, and who are disposed to be guided in the matter not by 
mere human enactments, but by the word of God. 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 



Passed by Congress, September, 1850. 



Among the measures passed toward the close of the late ses- 
sion of Congress, and known as the "Compromise" or "Peace" 
measures — which after lumbering in the Senate for months in 
the shape of an omnibus, were at length worked through the op- 
position of North and South in disjointed fragments — was a Bill 
to amend the act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from jus- 
tice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters." 
This act is famiharly called the Fugitive Slave Law, yet the 
term slave or slavery does not once occur in it. The phraseolo- 
gy of the act is "fugitives from service or labor," "persons ow- 
ing service or labor," &c., after the phraseology of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, which says, (Art. IV. Sec. 2.) "No 
person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws there- 
of, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or 
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor ; but 
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service 
or labor may be due." This studious avoidance of any verbal 
recognition of slavery in the very act M'hich is framed for the se- 
curit'y of the institution, is quite significant ; it shows that the 
public sentiment of the world forbids the inconsistency of an 
avowed legislation for slavery in a free republic, and that the 
abettors of slavery have not the shamelessness to face that sen- 
timent. 

With the provisions of this law the reader is already familiar; 
but we shall here give an abstract or analysis of the act as an 
introduction to some considerations drawn from the Scriptures 
upon the treatment due to fugitives from slavery. 

Theirs/ section authorizes and requires all commissioners of 
the circuit courts of the United States in whom are vested the 
powers of a justice of'the peace in respect to offenders, for any 
crime or offense against the United States, to exercise and dis- 
cbarge all the powers and duties conferred by this act. 



6 The Fugitive Slave Lmo. 

The second section provides that the superior court of each or- 
ganized territory of the United States shall have the same power 
to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and 
affidavit, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, 
which is now possessed by the circuit court of the United States, 
and those commissioners also are required to perform like duties, 
with the former, under this act. 

Section third empowers the United States courts, both circuit 
and superior, to enlarge the number of commissioners in order 
the better to carry into effect this act. 

The fourth section gives to said commissioners concurrent ju- 
risdiction with the judges of the circuit and district courts of the 
United States over persons claimed as fugitives from service, ac- 
cording to the provisions of the act. 

By section Jifth it is made the duty of all marshals and deputy 
marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued 
under the provisions of this act, when to them directed, under 
the penalty of one thousand dollars for each instance of refusal, 
or neglect, or of the value of the fugitive in case he shall escape 
from custody. This section likewise authorizes the marshals to 
appoint agents and to summon the posse comitatus to assist them 
in executmg the law. 

The sixth section authorizes the claimant of a fugitive, or his 
or her agent or attorney, to pursue and reclaim such fugitive, to 
seize and arrest him either with or without process; requires the 
court, judge, or commissioner before whom the case is brought, 
to determine it in a. summary manner; makes the deposition or 
affidavit of the claimant taken either in the state in which the 
arrest is made or in the state in which he resides, satisfactory 
proof of the fact that the person arrested owes him service or la- 
bor, and makes also the mere affidavit of the claimant proof of 
the identity of the fugitive ; declares that " in no trial or hearing 
under this act shall the testimony of the alleged fugitive be ad- 
mitted in evidence ;" and authorizes the claimant, upon receiv- 
ing a certificate from the court, judge, or commissioner, to use 
all necessary force to take back the fugitive to his own state. 

The seventh section provides penalties for any attempt to har- 
bor, conceal or rescue a fugitive. As this may be a matter of 
personal interest to the reader, we give the section entire. 

Sec. 7, And be itfwiher enacted, Tliat any person who shall knowingly and 
willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or 
any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such 
a fugitive from service or labor, either witii or without process as aforesaid ; or 
shall rescue or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the 
custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or per- 
sons la^vfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the autJior- 
ity herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so ow- 
ing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such 



The Fugitive Slave Laiv. 7 

claimant, his ag^nt or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized 
as aforesaid ; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the dis- 
covery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that 
such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either 
of said offenses, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and 
imprisonment not exceeding six niontlis, by indictment and conviction before 
the District Court of the United States for the district in whicli such offense 
may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, 
if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States ; 
and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party in- 
jured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for each fugi- 
tive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the dis- 
trict or territorial courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offense 
may have been committed. 

By the eighth section the marshals, their deputies, and the 
clerks of the courts acting in the case, are declared to be entitled 
to the fees for similar services in other cases, and a special pro- 
vision is made that a commissioner hearing snch a case shall re- 
ceive a fee of ten dollars if the alleged fugitive isdehvered over, 
and Jive if he is not, and that any person or persons appointed 
by the commissioner to execute his process shall receive Jive dol- 
lars for each person he or they may arrest and take before the 
commissioner, and also such additional fees as the commission- 
er shall deem reasonable for the incidental expenses of keeping 
the fugitive in custody. 

The ninth section provides that a sufficient force shall be de- 
puted by the marshal to ensure the safe delivery of the fugitive 
to the claimant in his own stale, whenever an affidavit is made 
by the claimant that he fears an attempt to rescue the fugitive 
from his hands ; the expense of transportation to be paid out of 
the treasury of the United States. 

The te7ith section makes the transcript of a record of any 
court of record in any stale, territory or district of the United 
States, duly authenticated, sufficient proof of the fact of the es- 
cape from service of the person therein described, and that record 
with an affidavit of the claimant to the identity of the alleged 
fugitive shall be a sufficient authority for the surrendry of the 
fugitive according to the former provisions of the act. 

Such for substance are the provisions of this act. They should 
be studied and analyzed by every citizen, for every citizen has a 
direct personal interest in the law. There is no man north of 
Mason and Dixon's line who may not be required to act as a 
slave-catcher, under the fifth section, which commands all good 
citizens "to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution 
of this law," and who may not be subjected to the penalties pro- 
vided by the seventh section, for any overt act of sympathy or 
succor to the fugitive. Should the venerable ex-President Day 
be passing by at the moment when a marshal or any of his sub- 
alterns is attempting to arrest an alleged fugitive, he could be 



8 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

summoned by the officer to aid in the capture, and should he re- 
fuse to render that aid, for thus " knowingly and willingly ob- 
structing" the arrest by his example, influence and lack of service, 
and at least " indirectly" aiding, abetting and assisting the escape 
of the fugitive, he would be liable to a fine of one thousand dol- 
lars and to imprisonment for six months, and also, in case of the 
actual escape of the fugitive through his refusal to aid in the ar- 
rest, to a further penalty of one thousand dollars " by way of 
civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct." Per- 
haps the venerable ex-Professor at Andover would be saved by 
his exegesis from incurring the penalties of the law, and yet we 
incline "to think that if a fugitive slave stood before him hi the 
concrete, his humane feelings and his intense love of liberty 
would get the better of his exegesis, and he would be the last 
man to help to send back a fellow man to that state of slavery 
which he has denounced with such indignant eloquence. Rath- 
er would he say to the slave-catcher, — we use his own language 
on a kindred point — "I would hold out my right hand to have it 
cut off, sooner than lift it up for such a [purpose]. I would not 
have upon my conscience the guilt of turning God's image, (re- 
deemed by the blood of his Son, and made free by the Lord Je- 
sus Christ himself,) into goods and chattels. I would not bring 

on my soul that guilt, for ten thousand worlds To fine 

a man in the enormous sum of $1,000, to imprison him more- 
over for six months, and then subject him to a civil action be- 
sides, for injury done to the master— and to do all this merely be- 
cause of an interference which humanity pleads for, although the 
law condemns it, is Turkish justice, not American — at any rate 
not New England justice." To the honor of Prof. Stuart we 
believe that no where would a fugitive slave be more safe than 
on Andover hill ; and yet for harboring him, or even refusing to 
aid in arresting him, the man whose name is venerated wherever 
learning and picly are esteemed, must submit to fines and im- 
prisonment. This is one feature of the law. 

It is remarkable that the bill has no provision against mistake, 
and no penalty for arresting and enslaving a freeman. It requires 
but the collusion of two men to seize a freeman in the streets of 
Ne.w York or of Boston, to drag him before a commissioner, to 
make affidavit of his escape from service and of his personal 
identity, and in one hour that freeman shall be in the custody of 
an armed force on his way to the slave-coffles of Bruin and Hill, 
to be sold to the rice plantations of the South. For such an out- 
rage, entirely feasible under this law, there is no penalty and no 
redress. True the sufferer has his action at common law for false 
arrest ; but if he should ever get back from bondage, how shall 
he, poor and defenceless, maintain such an action against the 
United States power that oppresses him ? The law rides over the 



The Constitutionality of the Lmv. 9 

ricfht of trial by jury as if the plain of Riinnemede were a fiction, 
and ignores the Habeas Corpus, as if the conrt of High Com- 
mission were established by the Constitution of the United States. 
It applies to apprentices at the north no less than to slaves at the 
south. 

One of the most infamous features of the law is its appeal to 
the mercenary feelings of the commissioner against the liberty 
of the alleged fugitive, and to like feelings in the rabble against 
the liberties of a class of their fellow citizens. Five dollars re- 
ward, with incidental expenses ad libitum, to whoever shall ar- 
rest a fugitive whether he shall prove to be a fugitive or not ; five 
dollars to the commissioner for hearing each case, and ten dollars 
for each case of conviction ! Never was a bill more adroitly fram- 
ed to array the baser passions of men against the instincts of hu- 
manity and the claims of justice ; never was a bill more adroitly 
framed to give to the abettors of slavery absolute power over per- 
sonal liberty, and over all the guards and bulwarks which centu- 
ries of condict on the field of battle and in the hall of legisla- 
tion have reared about that liberty. Of the constitutionality of 
such a law we do not purpose here to speak. That will be tested 
ere long before the proper tribunal upon some case of resistance 
designed for that very purpose. The Constitution of the United 
States (Art. IV, Sec. 2) declares, that "no person held to service 
or labor in one state, mider the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
charged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on 
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
But it is a question whether the Constitution, which provides 
(Art. VII, Amended) that, " in suits at common law, where the 
value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 
trial by jury shall be preserved," can allow the liberty of a man 
to be put in jeopardy without the judgment of his peers; or 
whether the instrument which declares (Art. V, Amend.) that 
''no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with- 
out due process of law," will recognize a law dispensing with 
trial by jury in such cases as come within the intent of the 
phrase "■ due prnress of law;" or whether the declaration in Art. 
I, Sec. 9, made without exception of persons, that "the privilege 
of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, 
in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public satety may require it," 
will admit of a standing exception against any class of persons 
livina; under the government of the United States. 

These cpiestions we leave to be determined by the proper au- 
thority, enduring meanwhile, as best we may, the disgrace of the 
fact, that the federal government of the United States is the only 
government in the civilized world that reduces to slavery by force 
of law, men bom under its protection and innocent of crime, 
3 



10 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

while the border government of a British province affords to 
thousands of men, women and children, flying from this oppres- 
sion, tlie welcome of a free but inclement clime. 

The morality of the fngitive slave law is with us a question 
of higher moment than its constitutionality. The treatment of 
fugitives from slavery is a question of morality ; it is also a scrip- 
tural question, for it was a subject of positive enactment in the 
civil constitution which Jehovah gave to the peofile of Israel, In 
that code we read, " Tlinu shall not deliver to his master the ser- 
vant which is escaped from his master to thee ; he shall dwell 
with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose in 
one of thy gates irJicre it liketh him best ; thou shall not oppress 
him.y (Dent, xxiii, 15, 16.) 

The meaning of this command is so obvious to an unsophisti- 
cated reader, that it does not seem to admit of dispute or even of 
a difference of opinion. Upon the face of it is seen the sfurit of 
the Mosaic institutes toward slavery. Those institutes prohibited 
man-stealing and trafficking in Hebrew slaves, (Ex. xxi, 16, and 
Lev. XXV, 39-47) ; they provided for the manumission of slaves 
at brief and stated intervals ; they secured to slaves many do- 
mestic, civil and religions rights and privileges; they guarded 
the life and the person of the slave from violence and abuse; 
they restricted the system of slavery at every point, with a view 
to the relief of the servant and the final overthrow of the sys- 
tem itself; and in this spirit and for this purpose — as a restraint 
upon the cruelty of masters, and as a means toward the abolition 
of slavery — they prohibited the delivery of a fugitive. But this 
view of the precept above quoted, so natural, and so entirely in 
accordance with the legislation of Moses, or rather of Jehovah 
through Moses, in reference to slavery, is rejected by some dis- 
tinguished exegetes, who regard the precept as a local statute and 
not a law of universal application. The following is Professor 
Stuart's comment on the passage : 

" The first enquiry of course is : Where does his master live ? Among the 
Hebrews, or amona^ foreignei-s ? The language of the passage fully develops 
this, and answers the question. He " has escaped from his master unto the 
Hebrews (the text says — thee, i. e., Israel ;) he shall dwell unlUfihec, among; you 

in one of thy gates." Of course, then, he is an imm^rant and did not 

dwell among ther.i before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belong- 
ing to a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration 
or restitution, if we may judge by the tenor of other property laws among the 
Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But be that as it may, the lan- 
guage of the text puts it beyond a doubt tliat the servant is a foreigner, and 
has fled from a heathen master. This entirely changes the complexion of tlie 
case. The Hebrews were God's chosen people, and were the only nation on 
earth which worsjiiped the only living and true God. On this ground, as they 
were the living depository of the oracles of God, great preference was given 
to them, and great caution exercised, to keep them from all tangling alliances 
and connection with the heathen. In case a slave escaped from them and 
came to the Hebrews, two things were taken into consideration, according to 



Prof. Stuart on Dent, xxiii, 15. 1-1 

the views of the Jewish legislator. The first was, that the treatment of slaves 
among the heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than it could lawfully be 
under^the Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed the power of life and 
death, of scourging, or imprisoning, or putting to excessive toil even to any 
extent that lie pleased. Not so among the Hebrews. HumnnHij pleaded for 
the protection of the fugitive. The second and most important consideration 
was, that only among the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to the knowl- 
edge and worship of the only living and true God. The clause which says : 
" Thou shalt not oppress him," of course means, that he shall be denied none 
of the privileges of a resident in the land, and that he shall not be subjected 
to peculiar taxation or labor. The verses before us do not say, that such a 
refugee servant shall be circumcised; but the admission of him to the privi- 
leges of a freemen implies this. The servants of Hebrews, whether of do- 
mestic or foreign origin, were all to be .circumcised, Gen. 17; 12-15. Of 
course the admitted denizen, in the present case, would be required to comply 
with such an injunction. By the right in question he became mcorporated 
into the Jewish theocratical commonwealth, and therefore entitled, as even 
bond-men were, to all its religious privileges. Moses, tlierefore, would not 
suffer him to be forced back into the darkness of heathenism, nor allow that 
he should be delivered up to an enraged heathen master. Was he not in the 
right ? 

" But we now put the other case, viz : that of escape from a Hebrew master, 
who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the case greatly changed ? 
Who would take from him the property which the Mosaic law gave him a right 
to hold ? Neither the bond-man himself, nor the neighbor of his master to 
whom the fugitive might come. Reclauiation of him could be lawfully made, 
and therefore must be enforced. 

" With this view of the matter before us, how can we appeal to the passage 
in question, to justify, yea, even to urge, the retention of fugitive^ bond-men in 
our own country ?' We are one nation — one so-called Christian nation, 
Christianity is a national religion among us. I do not mean that all men are 
real Christians, or that Christianity is established by law ; but I mean, that im- 
measurably the greatest part of our population. North and South, profess to re- 
spect Christianity, and appeal to its precepts as a test of morals, and as fur- 
nishing us with the rules of life. What state in the Union does not at least 
tacitly admit Christianity to hold such a place. 

" \Vhen a fugitive-bondman, then, comes to us of the North, from a master 
at the South, in what relation do we of the North stand to the Southern mas- 
ter? Are our fellow-citizens and brethren of the South to be accounted as 
heathen in our sight? No, this will never do. I know not what the proportion 
of real Christians in the South may be, compared with those of the North; 
but this I do know, from personal observation made at the South, to some ex- 
tent, and from a considerable acquaintance with people of the South, that 
there are among them many warm hearts and active hands in the cause of true 
Christianity. There is no state where such persons may not be found, and 
many of them too. A bond-man, fleeing from them to us, is a case of just the 
same kind as would have been presented among the Hebrews, if a Hebrew 
bond-man had fled from the tribe of Judali to that of Benjamin. We do not 
jsend back the refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe. There is 
many a Christian master there, and many too who deal with their servants as 
immortal beings. It may be, that the fugitive has left a severe and cruel mas- 
ter, who will wreak his vengeance upon him for escaping. And it may be, 
also, that if the fugitive takes up his abode here, he will find those who will 
maltreat him, and defraud him, and do other grievous things. Crimes of this 
sort have not as yet quite vanished from the North. But be the master as he 
may, since we of the North are only other tribes of the same great common- 
wealth, we can not sit in judgment on cruel masters belonging to tribes differ- 
ent from our own, and having by solemn compact, a separate and independent 



12 Tlte Fugitive Slave Law. 

jurisdiction in respect to all matters of justice between man and man, with which 
no stranger can on any pretence whatever intermeddle. We pity the restored 
fugitive, and have reason enough to pity him, when he is sent back to be de- 
livered into the hands of enraged cruelty. But if he goes back to a lenient 
and a Christian master, the matter is less grievous. The responsibility, how- 
ever, for bad treatment of the slave, rests not in the least degree on us of the 
North. The Mosaic law does not authorize us to reject the claims of our fel- 
low countrymen and citizens, for strayed or stolen property — property author- 
ized and guarantied as such by Southern States to their respective citizens. 
These states are not heathen. We have acknowledged them as brethren and 
feUow citizens of the great community. A fugitive from them is not a fugitive 
from an idolatrous and polytheistic people. And even if the Bible had neither 
said nor implied anything in relation to this whole matter, the solemn compact 
■which we have made, before heaven and earth, to deliver up fugitives when 
they are men held to service in tlie state from which they have fled, is enough 
to settle the question of legal right on the part of tiie master, whatever we 
may think of his claim when viewed in the light of Christianity." — Conscience 
and the Constitution, pp. 30-33. 

The first point in this interpretation is the emphasis put upon 
the word thee, which makes it refer not to the Hebrews individu- 
ally, but to the Hebrew nation collectively. The stress of this 
whole argument to prove that the injunction is not absolute and 
universal, but refers only to a special case, lies in the assumption 
that the pronoun thee relates to the Hebrew commonwealth, and 
not to each and every member of that commonwealth. As there 
is nothing in the construction of the Hebrew that requires this 
interpretation, an English reader who will take pains to compare 
this with other similar forms of expression in the laws of Moses, 
is competent to decide whether this interpretation is probable from 
usage and the context, or whether it is an instance of special 
pleading to make out a case. Thee, says Prof. Stuart, means 
Israel, i.e. Israel collectively, the nation and land of Israel; that 
it often has this meaning we do not dispute ; but his argument 
claims that in the passage under consideration it has this meaning 
only, to the exclusion of any other ; whereas there is no proof 
that the word does not in this, as in many other cases, refer to 
Israel partitively as well as collectively, which of course would 
spoil his reasoning. The fifth commandment is an example of 
this usage : Honur thy fai Iter and thy mother, that thy days may 
he long upon the land which the Lord, thy God giveth thee. Now 
though the land was given to Israel as a nation, it was also given 
in sections to each individual Israelite, and this command and 
promise have reference not to tlie nation collectively, but to each 
individual of the nation. Honor tliy father and thy mother, is a 
command not to Israel but to each Israelite ; that thy days may 
be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, — the 
land in whicli thou as an Israelite hast an inheritance. The 
nation as such was required by statute to enforce filial respect and 
obedience; but the fifth commandment was strictly personal in 
its application. Here then is a sentence of precisely the same 



Prof. Stuart on Deiit. xxiii, 15, 13 

construction with that in Deiit. xxiii, 15, in which the word 
thee denotes not Israel as a nation but each individual of 
the nation. And what proof is there that it has not the same 
meaning in that place also ? Examples of this partitive sense 
of the word thee in such commandments might be multiplied 
to almost any extent. We give but two or three in addi- 
tion. •' Thou shall not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which 
they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou 
shalt inherit in the land the Lord thy God giveth thee to pos- 
sess it." (Dent, xix, 14.) Here of course thee refers to each in- 
dividual owner or heir in the land of Israel. " Every man shall 
give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God 
which he hath given theef i.e. each man. (Deut. xvi, 17.) The 
same phraseology is used in precepts regulating the conduct of 
the Israelites toward each other. "Thou shalt not see thy, 
brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them : 
thou shalt in any case bring them to thy brother. And if thy 
brother be not nigh to thee — (does this mean if thy brother does 
not dwell in the land oi Israel?) — if thy brother be not nigh to 
thee — (is not a near neighbor) — or if thou know him not, then thou 
shalt bring it to thine own house, and it shall be with thee (with 
whom? — Israel? or with the land of Israel? — or with this man, 
in his own house?) it shall be with thee until thy brother seek 
after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again." (Deut. xxii, 1,2.) 
These instances will suffice to show that the use of the word 
thee in the passage under consideration does not prove that the 
precept relates solely to fugitives from surrounding nations to the 
land of Israel, but may refer as well to fugitives from one part of 
Israel to another. If it had been intended to apply solely to the 
former, we can not but think that it would have been made thus 
explicit by a qualifying clause; that it would have read " Thou 
shalt not deliver to his master the servant, which is escaped to 
thee from his master" — -from any of the nations which are 
round about thee. Such a phrase is used in another instance 
where it is even superfluous: " Ye shall not go after other gods, 
of the gods of the people lohich are round about you.'''' Why 
was not this explanatory clause inserted ? The precepts of Moses 
are given with much precision ; and s|)ecial care is taken to dis- 
criminate in various ways between different classes of servants 
and the claims of their masters upon them. Why then if Moses 
meant only t\igitives from among the heathen, did he not say so 
in a single word. But what has Moses said? He has given an 
unqualified injunction not to return the fugitive servant to his 
master ; it is so plain that he that runs may read, and the obvious 
reading accords with every man's humane feelings and moral 
convictions, and with the entire legislation of Moses upon this 
subject, which, as Prof. Stuart says, " provided for many mitiga- 



14 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

tions of the usual rigors of slavery." And the utmost that the 
ingenuity of learning can do to counteract this obvious meaning — 
the meaning which every man's heart tells him must be true — 
is to torture and twist that little word thee, so as to make it limit 
a command which is universal in its spirit, its reason, and its 
terms, and limit it against liberty, and against the genius of the 
Mosaic institutes which guarded and promoted liberty. We sub- 
mit whether common sense is not better than learning so em- 
ployed ; yet it is not learning, it is not criticism, that begets such 
an interpretation, and sacred learning and the science of Biblical 
criticism should not be held accountable for it. 

The ancient Hebrew doctors took a different view of this pas- 
sage from that which Prof, Stuart has taken. They applied it 
to the case of Judaized servants of Hebrew masters, when threat- 
ened with removal from the land of Judea; as well as to fugi- 
tives from heathen masters. According to Selden, no mean au- 
thority in Hebrew antiquities, if a Hebrew master removed from 
the land of Israel to any other country, he could not compel his 
servant to go with him, if that servant was a Hebrew or had be- 
come in faith a Jew ; and if the master should attempt to compel 
his servant to go with him and the servant should flee from him, 
the servant was safe in any part of Israel ; the whole larid and 
every part of it was his sanctuary. The master could not re- 
cover a fugitive in such a case.* Thus the Hebrew doctors made 
a broader application of (he command in Deut. xxiii, 15 than is 
given to it by Prof. Stuart ; yet there seems to be no just ground 
for even the limitation which they put upon it. 

Count Pastoret, in his elaborate history of legislation, under- 
stands this prohibition to surrender the fugitive to be universal ; 
and his opinion is the more valuable because it comes from one 
accustomed to the interpretation of laws, and who wrote not as 
a theologian, nor as a controversialist, but as an historian. Allud- 
ing to the servant who had been enfranchised by six years ser- 
vice, he says, " It is for such an one, or rather for all slaves, (the 
Scripture does not particularize,) that the Lord forbids the Israelite 
with whom one of these shall take refuge, to deliver him to his 
master, and commands to let him rest in the city which he shall 
choose as an asylum. "f This opinion is fortified by quotations 
from Jewish authorities. 

The author of the article in Kitto's Cyclopasdia on Hebrew 
slavery, quotes this very passage to prove that among the He- 
brews, "servants had the power of changing their masters, and 
of seeking protection where they 'pleased.'''' Dis. Scott, Marsh, 
Wayland, and other judicious interpreters, take the same view. 

* De Jure Nat. et Gent, juxta Discipl. Hebr. b. vi, c. 8, p. 745. 
■j- Histoire de la Legislation, Tom. iii. 



Prof. Stuart on Dent, xxiii, 15. 15 

The learned, therefore, do not all agree with Prof. Stuart in his 
interpretation of this passage, and as we have before said, the un- 
learned are competent to judge for themselves of its meaning. 
Was it not an universal law, designed to give the slave security 
against the cruelty of his master, and, by rendering slavery inse- 
cure, to hasten its final abolition? 

It is important to notice in this connection, that this is the only 
law respecting fugitives to be foinid in the institutes of Moses. 
Prof. Stuart assumes, or rather guesses, that there was a different 
law relating to the servants of Hebrew masters, but he does not 
tell us where it may be found, and we are sure that it can not be 
found in the Pentateuch. He says, '-if the fugitive had been a 
Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole face of the 
thing would be changed. Restoration, or restitution, if we may 
judge by thetenor of the other property-laws among the Hebrews, 

would have surely been enjoined Reclamation of him 

could be lawfully made, and therefore must be enforced." But 
where is the law under which reclamation could be made? Why 
do we not find it in the statute-book ? Why did not Prof Stuart 
produce it? He argues that fugitives could have been recovered 
under the properiy-\a.ws given by Moses. But was this so? 
Were slaves among the Hebrews regarded as property, in such a 
sense that they could be recovered under a mere property-law in 
which they were not named ? Have not slaves always been re- 
garded as a peculiar species of property requiring special legisla- 
tion ? Suppose that the Constitution of the United States, in- 
stead of providing for the return of "fugitives from service," 
simply provided that property taken without permission from 
one state to another should be restored to its rightful owner; 
would any man dream of recovering a fugitive slave under such 
a law ? Though slaves are regarded as property in the states in 
which they are held, a fugitive slave could not be reclaimed un- 
der any national law relating to strayed or stolen property, but 
only under a specific law relating to slaves. There was no such 
law among the Hebrews, and no property-law could by any pos- 
sibility cover the case. The servant of a Hebrew was the prop- 
erty of his master in a very limited sense, — the property was in 
his service rather than in his person. If a Hebrew, he could go 
free after six years service, and his master must provide him an 
outfit ; if a foreigner, though the Hebrews had permission to 
make continual drafts upon the heathen for slaves (Lev. xxv, 46, 
where 'for-ever' refers not to individual slaves in perpetuity, but 
to slaves in perpetuo from a certain class), yet he too might go 
free in the year of jubilee, when liberty was to be proclaimed 
"throughout all the {aud^ to all the inhabitants therenf'' {Lev, 
xxv, 10.) Such a proclamation at the south every fiftieth 
year, would materially change the character of slave-property. 



16 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

Moreover the foreigner enslaved among the Hebrews, by em- 
bracing the Jewish rehgion, became entitled to many immunities 
in common with Hebrew servants. It is absnrd to suppose that 
slaves held by such a tenure could have been reclaimed as fugi- 
tives under any property-law in the statute book of the Hebrew 
nation. Moses never regarded slaves as "chattels" or "things;" 
least of all did he so regard Hebrew servants, who could them- 
selves hold property; and yet it is of such that Prof. Stuart says, 
they could have been reclaimed under p?-operty-\a\vs. This is di- 
rectly against the Mosaic laws on slavery. There was but one stat- 
ute applicable to fugitive servants, and that prohibited their being 
sent back to the master m any case, or upo?i any conditinn what- 
ever. It was the design of Moses by this and every other law 
upon the subject, to abolish slavery at the earliest day. 

This law is as binding in its principle and spirit now as then : 
the reason for it still exists, and there is no safer canon of criti- 
cism than that which has always been a favorite canon with 
Prof. Stuart, ^^ manente ratiojie, rnatiet ipsa /e.r." Prof. Stuart 
assigns two reasons for making such a law in favor of fugitives 
from among the heathen. " The first was. that the treatment of 
slaves among the heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than 
it could lawfully be under the Mosaic law. The heathen master 
possessed the power of life and death, of scourging, or imprison- 
ing, or putting to excessive toil, even to any extent that he pleas- 
ed. Not so among the Hebrews. Humanity pleaded, then, for 
the protection of the fugitive. The second and most important 
consideration was, that only among the Hebrews could the fugi- 
tive slave come to the knowledge and worship of the only living 
and true God." 

But he argues that our relations to the South are not analogous 
to the relations of the Hebrews to the surrounding heathen, but to 
the relations of the different tribes of Israel toward each other. 
" A bond-man, fleeing from them to us, is a case of just the same 
kind as would have been presented among the Hebrews, if a 
Hebrew bond-man had fled from the tribe of Judah to that of 
Benjamin. (But we have seen that in such a case there was no 
law by which a fugitive could be reclaimed.) We do not send 
back the refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe. 
There is many a Christian master there, and many too who 
deal with their servants as immortal beings." Very true ; there 
are Christian masters scattered through the South. And so in 
the course of time there were many devout and kind Hebrew 
masters scattered among the surrounding heathen nations. Will 
Prof. Stuart inform us whether a fugitive to " Mee," from a He- 
brew master residing in a heathen nation, should have been de- 
livered up to his master or protected from him? According to 
his view of i\\Q property-la-ws among the Hebrews, such a fugi- 



Professor Stuart on Americati Slavery. 17 

live must have been surrendered to his master ; but that would 
have been to send him out of thee — " land of Israel," which Prof, 
Stuart admits, was expressly forbidden. How could this conflict 
of laws have been adjusted ? 

But passing this, we will proceed to test the law in Deut. xxiii, 
15. by the principle that a law stands while the reason for it re- 
mains. The reasons given by Prof. Stuart for such a law touch- 
ing the slaves of heathen masters are — 1. That slavery exist- 
ed in a much worse form among the heathen than among the 
Hebrews ; and 2. That among the heathen, slaves could not 
come to the knowledge of God. 

Is then the condition of slaves at the south in any respect like 
that of slaves among the heatlien in the time of Moses? Upon 
this point Prof. Stuart shall be our witness; he has visited the 
South, and his testimony on this point may be presumed to be 
impartial. In the same pamphlet from which the previous ex- 
tracts were made, he says, " As existing among us, slavery has 
taken its worst form ; it degrades men made in the image of their 
God and Redeemer, into brute-beasts, or (which makes them still 
lower) converts them into mere goods and chattels.'" 

Does then the law which forbade the Hebrews to send back a 
fugitive slave to a servitude " more severe and rigorous" than that 
which was tolerated by Moses, require or permit us to send back 
a fugitive to slavery in " its worst form ?" 

" In this form of slavery," he continues, " all the sacred, social 
relations of life are destroyed. Husband and wife, parent and 
child, brother and sister, are not known in law, nor protected nor 
cognized by it. In conformity with this, these relations are 
every day severed by some slave-dealers, without regard to the 
feelings of the wretched beings who are torn asunder; and all 
their parental, conjugal, and filial sympathies, are the subject of 
scorn if not of derision. No invasion of human rights can be 
worse than this; none more directly opposed to the will of God, 
inscribed upon the pages of the Scriptures, and on the very na- 
ture of mankind." And does a law that prohibited the surren- 
der of fugitives from heathen masters, sanciion or permit the sur- 
render of men and women who have fled to us from such a state 
of brutality and cruelty as is here described ? 

But to proceed with Prof. Stuart's specification of the evils of 
American slavery. " As the inevitable consequence of this, the 
mass of slaves must live, and do live in a virtual state of concu- 
binage ; which, so far from being restrained, is often encouraged 
for the sake of increasing slave property." A further consequence 
of this violation of the conjugal relation is, " a widely diffused 
profligacy and licentiousness ;" of which the Professor says, " If 
there were no other argument against slavery, this alone would 
be amply sufficient to secure the reprobation of it, in the eyes of 

3 



18 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

every impartial and enlightened Christian man." Shall we then- 
compel men and women who have taken refnge among ns, and 
who are living in the sacred relation of husband and wife, to re- 
turn to this horrible state of profligacy and pollution? Does not 
'■^ HumaniUj plead for the protection of the fugitive?" If there 
was anything worse than this in heathen slavery in the time of 
Moses, we know not what it could have been. 

But we must not forget the second reason which Prof. Stuart 
assigns for the prohibition to surrender fugitives from heathen 
masters ; viz. that among the Hebrews alone could the slave 
come to the knowledge of the true God. Now, according to 
Prof. Stuart, what is the prospect that a slave at the South will 
come to the knowledge of God? "Ignorance profound, and 
nearly universal, is the inevitable lot of the great mass of all who 
are held in bondage. In some of the states, the learning even 
to read is forbidden ; thus contravening, with a high hand, the 
command of Heaven to search the Scriptures." In such a case, 
obedience to a human law is crime ; it is treason against the 
Majesty of heaven and earth. [Let us hear Prof. Stuart, by the 
way, on the " higher law." " There is a law then, higher than 
human law. There is a case — and of that case, not Prof. Stuart 
only but any slave on a southern plantation is a competent judge 
— there is at least one case or class of cases, in which " obedience 
to a human law is crime ;" and why ? Because " it is treason 
against the Majesty of heaven and earth." Let Prof. Stuart 

be heard on the " higher law" of conscience ! '' Not 

only the temporal, but the eternal welfare of the slaves is often 
grievously neglected." And does a law which forbade the send- 
ing back of fugitives into heathen ignorance, require or permit 
us — who are commanded to give the Gospel to every creature — 
to send back our fellow men to a state in which " ignorance pro- 
found" shall be their "inevitable lot," in which they shall be 
forbidden to read God's word, and in which in all probability 
their eternal welfare will be ^'grievously neglected?^' 

Such is American Slavery as depicted by Prof. Stuart.* But 
is there no mitigation of the picture ? May we not discriminate 
in favor of Christian masters ? Alas ! the horrid picture has no 
relief; for says the Professor, " Slavery in its best attitude in our 
country, even among humane and Christian masters, is a de- 
gradation of a whole class of the community, beloiv their proper 
rank as men." Well may he exclaim, " Enough, and more than 
enough, on this painful — this revolting subject. When a true 
hearted Christian runs his eye over such an assemblage of evils, 
which of necessity stand connected with our present system of 
slavery, is it possible that he can have a doubt as to what Chris- 
tianity demands?" 

* For the preceding quotations, see Conscience and the Constitution, pp. 
104-106. 



Prof. Stuart on American Slavery. 19 

We thank Prof. Stuart for alluding to the demands of Chris- 
tianity in such a connection. He elsewhere expresses still more 
strongly what is here implied ; viz, that the principles of Chris- 
tianity against slavery supersede all the precedents in its favor 
alleged from the Old Testament. " If we appeal to the patriarchs 
to justify slavery, then why not appeal to them in order to justify 
polygamy and concubinage ? Undoubtedly they neither thought 
nor intended to do wrong in either of the cases that are before 
lis. But this will not justify us in imitating them. The Gospel 

has given us better light Perhaps we may see, before 

we are through, that slavery is as little commanded or even per- 
mitted by the highest form of Christianity, as those practices. . . 
What Christ has commanded is our rule ; and not what the pa- 
triarchs did, who lived when the light was just beginning to 
dawn."* This may serve as an offset to what Prof. Stuart seems 
to teach on page 32, of our obligation by compact to respect 
" the legal right of the master, whatever we may think of his 
claim wheti vieivsd in the light of Christianity f' and also to his 
own narrow interpretation of Dent xxiii, 1.5. If that command 
had originally the limits which Prof. Smart would assign to ir, 
then by his own showing the principles of Christianity have en- 
larged its margin, or have even superseded it altogether by their 
clearer light. 

But that command had no such limitation. Words are to 
be taken in their fullest meaning, unless there is something in 
the nature of the subject, or iu the context, or in the specific 
reference and occasion, or in the usage of the writer, to restrict 
that meaning. This principle lies at the foundation of all our in- 
terpretation of language. Elspecially does it apply to the interpre- 
tation of laws ; it is the only safe and just rule by which a statute 
can be interpreted. Now here is a law which in its language is 
absolute and universal ; — nothing could be more so. " Thou 
shalt not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from 
his master to theeJ' It is impossible to frame a proposition more 
general than this. There is no class of servants specified; it 
reads, " the servant," which is any servant. The law makes no 
distinction in favor of a class of masters, and it makes no pro- 
vision for compensating the master. It declares without any 
qualification, that the fugitive servant shall not be surrendered to 
kis master, whoever that master may be. So the law reads ; and 
it must be taken as it reads, unless good reason can be shown to 
the contrary. But what warrant is there for limiting the appli- 
cation of the law ? There is none in the language itself, none in 
the usage of the author, none in any specialties of the case, none 
in the context, none in any known facts, none in the subject for 



* Conscience and the Constitution, pp. 25-26. 



20 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

which the law was made. The law as it stands, is in perfect har- 
mony with all the legislation of Moses with respect to slavery. 
Says Pastorct, •'• Among no people have slaves received so much 
of the kind superintendence of law as among the Hebrews. 
Moses conformed to an existing state of things in tolerating sla- 
very, but by keeping it within strict limits, he sought to harmo- 
nize its rigor with the benevolence of the Supreme. Slavery 
among the Hebrews terminated by redemption, by enfranchise- 
ment, by due course of law, by the death of the master, if a 
Gentile or proselyte, and by his death without issue, if a He- 
brew." Is it credible that the author of such a code for the 
regulation of slavery — a code which, by the severest penalties, 
guarded the servant from the oppression and cruelty of his master, 
and which provided in so many ways for the emancipation of the 
servant, both voluntarily and compulsorily on the part of the 
master — is it credible that the author of such a code regarded 
servants as chattels, and left them in any case to be disposed of 
by the laws of property ? Did he who with his own hand wrote 
that man was made in the image of God, regard man diS property 
or a thing 7 The laws of Moses were given in the wilderness, to 
a people just escaped from bondage, and who therefore had no 
slaves ; they were given in anticipation of the introduction of 
slavery among that people when they should come to be settled 
as conquerors in Canaan ; they were given to restrain the lust of 
conquest and oppression, and to hedge in as much as possible the 
natural tendency of the emancipated to retaliate upon others the 
cruelties of their own bondage, — to prevent the Israelites from 
becoming to each other aad to the Canaanites what the Egyptians 
had been to the Israelites; they were given in order, by a quali- 
fied and an onerous permission, to secure the overthrow of a sys- 
tem which, as the times and the people were, could not have 
been shut out by an absolute prohibition. And as the crowning 
act of legislation for the ultimate overthrow of an evil tolerated 
from necessity, it was decreed that no fugitive from slavery 
should ever be delivered up to his master. The slave was at 
liberty to escape from his master whenever he desired to better 
his condition, and in whatever part of Israel he should choose an 
asylum, there was he to be allowed to remain without molesta- 
tion. Such was the only statute in the Hebrew institutes re- 
specting "fugitives from service." It is an honor to the wisdom 
and the benevolence of its author ; and shows that we should 
neither "consign Moses over to reprobation," nor "regard him as 
an igtioramus/^ however much Prof. Stuart's comments upon the 
Hebrew law-giver might dispose us to either. The principle of 
that law remains, — eclaircised by the Golden Rule of Christianity 
into a law for all time : "thou shalt not deliver to his master 

THE SERVANT WHICH IS ESCAPED FROM HIS MASTER TO THEE." 



Teachings of the New Testament. 21 

Should the slaveholder here ask, what redress we would give 
to one whose slave has escaped from him, we would commend 
to him the wisdom of Diogenes. When a slave ran away 
from Diogenes he would not pursue him, but observed, that it 
would be a frightful thing if Diogenes could not do without the 
slave, since the slave could do without Diogenes. Let the master 
prove himself to be as independent as the slave ; and if the slave 
cares nothing about him, let him show the world that he cares 
nothing about the slave. 

But it is claimed that we have the example of an Apostle for 
sending back a slave to his master, and therefore that this is a 
Christian duty. We will let Prof. Stuart state the case. 

" What did Paul do at Rome ? A slave of Philemon, at Colosse, ran away 
and came to Rome. There he was converted to Christianity under Paul's 
preaching. The Apostle was so pleased witli him, that he was desirous to re- 
tain him as a friend and a helper. Did he tell the slave that he had a right, 
nay, that it was his duty, to keep away from his master, and stay Avith him ? 
Not at all. He sent back Onesimus, the slave, to his master, (Phil. v. 12,) and 
he tells tlie master, tlxat he could not venture to retain Onesimus without know- 
ing whether he would consent, v. 14. ' Perhaps,' says the Apostle, ' he de- 
parted for a season, tiiat tliou shouldst receive Mm forever.^ He then expressed 
his ardent desire that Onesimus may be treated with great kindness, and as a 
Christian ought to be treated. 

" What now have we here ? Paul, sending back a Christian servant, who 
had run away, to his Ctiristian master ; and this even when Paul had such an 
estimation of the servant, that he much desired to keep him as a helper, while 
he himself was in bonds for the gospel's sake. Yet he would not continue to 
flo this, although it was so desirable to him. He enjoins it upon Onesimus to 
return to his master forever. This last phrase has reference to the fact, that 
Paul supposed that the sense of Christian obligation, which was now enter- 
tained by Onesimus, would prevent him from ever repeating his offense. And 
all this too, when Philemon, being an active and zealous Christian, would in a 
moment have submitted to any command of Paul respecting Onesimus. Why 
then did Paul send him back ? There is only one answer to be given, viz., 
that Paul's Christian conscience would not permit him to injure the vested rights 
of Philemon. He could not think of keeping the servant, even to minister as 
a friend to his own necessities while in prison. Paul's conscience, then, like 
his doctrines, was very different from that of the abolitionists. Paul's con- 
science sent bacic the fugitive slave ; theirs enco%irages him to run away, and 
then protects him in the misdeed, yea, justifies, applauds, glorifies him, as a 
noble, independent fellow. The conscience of Paul sends back the fugitive, 
without any obligation at all on the ground of compact; theirs encourages and 
protects his escape in tlie face of the most solemn national compact." — Con- 
science and tlie Constitution, pp. 60, 61. 

In considering the case of Onesimus, the first question which 
arises is, Was Onesimus a slave in the common acceptation of 
that term 1 

There can be no doubt that Onesimus had run away from the 
service of Philemon, a citizen of Colosse in Phrygia, and had 
come to Rome, where Paul was at that time a prisoner, though 
not in close confinement. Onesimus had seen Paul at the house 
of his master, and either being in want, or desiring to see a fa- 



22 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

miliar face, or becoming thoughtful on the subject of religion, or 
for some unknown reason, he came to Paul, who received him 
kindly and instructed him till he was brought to repentance and 
faith in Christ, and who then sent him back to Philemon, with a 
letter of intercession and commendation. In this way he is in- 
troduced to us, and all our knowledge of him must be derived 
from this epistle. In v. 16 of the epistle, there is an allusion to 
the relation which had subsisted between Onesimus and Phile- 
mon. Paul exhorts Philemon to receive Onesimus " not now as 
a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." It is plain 
therefore, that Onesimus had been a servant of Philemon ; and 
the question is important, what that state of service was. Was 
Onesimus a slave, in our sense of the word ; — i. e., " a-person who 
is wholly subject to the will of another; — one whose person and 
services are wholly under the control of another." We do not 
affirm that he was not a slave ; but no one, with any pretensions 
to scholarship, would attempt to prove that Onesimus was a slave, 
from the mere fact that he is spoken of as a servant, [dovlov.) 

The whole question here turns upon the meaning of the Greek 
word dovloi, {doulos,) which in our version is translated by the 
term, servant. This meaning is to be ascertained from a com- 
parison of the places in which the word is used in the New Tes- 
tament, and from the common use of the term in Greek writers 
with respect to a then existing class of society. We shall con- 
sider it, therefore, exegetically and historically. 

If we should speak of one as a slave there would be no mis- 
taking his position ; the term itself would define it. But if we 
should speak of one as a servant, it could not be known from the 
word whether he were a slave or a voluntary servant ; for though 
every slave is a servant, not every servant is a slave. Or if we 
should speak of one as having been a slave or a servant in a 
remote period, e.g., in feudal times, one could not fully understand 
his position till he had learned something of the state of society 
and the modes of service at that time. Now we afiirm of the word 
dovlog, as commonly used in the New Testament, that it does not 
answer genericaUy to the English word slave, but rather, as it is 
given in the English Bible, to the word servant. This will be 
plain from a few examples. In Matt, xx, 27, Christ says to his 
disciples, " whosoever will be chief among you, (f'a™ if.mv dovlo?,) 
let him be your servant ;" but the disciples of Christ do not sus- 
tain toward each other the relation of slaves. Acts ii, 18. " And 
on my servants, {jov; dovlov; /nov,) and on my handmaidens, I will 
pour out in those days of my Spirit ;" but God does not call his 
people his slaves. 

Acts xvi, 17. " The same," i. e. the female soothsayer at 
Philippi, " followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, these men 
are the servants of the most high God, {doikoi rov deov,^ which show 



Was Onesimus a Slave ? '^3 

to us the way of salvation." How absurd to have called them 
slaves ! Rom. i, 1. " Paul a servant of Jesus Christ" {dovlo: 'ir/. Xo. ) 
Was Paul the slave of Christ or his willing servant ? Again and 
again he speaks of himself as the servant of Christ, using always 
the same word. 

So James begins his epistle (i, I), ''• James a servatit {doHog) 
of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." In the first verse of the 
Apocalypse this word is twice used : suppose we should read that 
verse thus — " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave 
to him, to show to his slaves things which must shortly come to 
pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his slave John." 
Does not every one see the violence of such an interpretation ? 

In the same book the prophets (x, 7) and the martyrs (xix, 2) 
are called the servants of God. Did their relation to God resemble 
that of s/aues, or of free-servants? Yet they were dovXoi. To 
crown all, we read in Rev. xxii, 3, that in heaven " there shall be 
no more curse ; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be 
in it ; and his servants shall serve him." Will the condition of 
the redeemed in heaven be in any respect analogous to that of 
slaves upon earth ? Yet they will be the servants (tJocAot) of God. 

It is evident therefore that the generic meaning of the term 
dpvlo; is expressed not by the word slave, but by the word ser- 
vant. It is often applied to the voluntary service of the follow- 
ers and worshipers of God, and of the followers and ministers 
of Christ, implying obedience, devotedness, fidelity and the like, 
but without the remotest allusion to a state of slavery. The 
fact therefore that Paul speaks of Onesimus as a dovXo; is not in 
itself proof that Onesimus was a slave, any more than Paul was 
a slave, or anything like a slave when he called himself a dovlog 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. The generic meaning of the word in 
the prevailing usage of the New Testament is servant and not 
slave, though in some instances the context requires that the lat- 
ter meaning should be given to the word. 

It is a significant fact in this connection, that while the word 
Sov)m; occurs one hundred and twenty-two times in the New Tes- 
tament, it is not once translated in our Bible by the term slave, 
but always by the term servant, except in one or two instances 
where the word bondman is used to heighten a contrast. The 
qualifying clause in 1 Tim. vi, 1, under the yoke (Sovloi vnd ';vy6v) 
shows that 8ov).oi, alone did not define a state of servitude. In 
the opinion of the scholars who made oar excellent version the 
word doHo; does not mean specifically a slave, but a servant in 
general ; and this opinion has the more weight because the trans- 
lation was made long before the morality of slavery began to be 
discussed in England, while slave-trading and slave-holding were 
practised by Christians without compunction, and therefore the 
word servant was chosen by the translators for philological rea- 



24 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

sons only, — not because they had a point to carry, but because 
that word expressed the meaning of the original. 

De Wette, who perhaps stands at the head of German exposi- 
tors for critical knowledge and philological accuracy, translates 
the word dovlnc, not by the German word sclave or slave, but by 
the word knecht, which means a man-servant, especially one em- 
ployed upon a farm, — and also a workman or journeyman at a 
trade. The precise difference between the two terms is this ; 
" the right of a master over a knecht can extend only so far as 
to require from him that labor or service which he has pledged 
himself to render : but the sclave is not only bound to do every 
kind of labor for his master, but all he has or acquires, nay, even 
his own person is subjected to him."* This eminent scholar, so 
nice in the selection of words, in choosing a term to express the 
meaning of the Greek dovU^, rejects sclave and takes knecht^ the 
word which is used also in the German version of the New Tes- 
tament. And since De Wette lived in a country where the sub- 
ject of slavery is not agitated as it is with us, we have every rea- 
son to regard this as his unbiassed opinion as an interpreter : 
indeed, he was too jealous of his reputation as a scholar to have 
allowed any personal prejudice to have biassed him upon such a 
point. 

From the philological view of the case we turn to another, 
viz. : the historical view. What light does the institution of 
slavery as it actually existed among the Greeks shed on the point 
before us? We say among the Greeks, because Philemon was a 
Greek, and a citizen of a Grecian state, and although at the date of 
this epistle the Roman empire extended over Asia Minor, it is not 
probable that in domestic institutions the Rortian law superseded 
as yet the laws and usages of conquered provinces, any more than 
the Roman mythology and worship superseded theirs. We know 
that in Judea social customs and institutions were not molested 
by the conquerors ; and we certainly should not form our idea of 
Greek slavery at this period from the code of Justinian, of a much 
later date. The Greek slave was commonly in a better condition 
than the Roman, and was more frequently manumitted. Roman 
slavery was slavery in its most absolute form, giving the master 
unconditional control over the person, the services and the life of 
the slave ; but this power was somewhat restrained, and the 
whole system ameliorated, by the enactments of several of the 
emperors. The slave could not hold property ; yet in large bus- 
iness transactions, which were sometimes committed to his care, 
apecidium was allowed him. Among the Greeks, or at least in 
Athens and in some affiliated states, the life and person of the 
slave were protected by law ; a person who struck or maltreated 

* Adler's Lexicon, 



Slavery among the Greeks. 25 

a slave was liable to an action ; and a slave could not be put to 
death without a legal sentence. If a master was cruel, the slave 
could take refuge in the Theseion, and there remain till he could 
procure his transfer to a new master ; for any one who conducted 
himself too harshly toward his slaves was by law compelled to 
sell them. A slave could even indict his master for assault and 
battery, and men were put to death for crimes against their bond- 
men as for crimes against their fellow citizens. Slaves were often 
hired out by their masters to work in mines, in agriculture, or in 
manufactures; and in such cases they sometimes worked on 
their own account, paying their masters a certain sum, or a per- 
centage. In this way slaves sometimes amassed considerable 
property. Slaves acquired by conquest remained fixed to the 
soil, like the serfs in feudal times, but those obtained by purchase 
could be transported from place to place. Such in general was 
the state of slavery among the Greeks.* 

We come now to a fact of much importance to the case in 
hand. Archbishop Potter of Canterbury, in his Greek Archaeol- 
ogy — a work which passed rapidly through six editions in Eng- 
land, and was translated into foreign languages — speaking of 
slavery in Athens, says, " Slaves, as long as they were under the 
government of a master, were called oixhui, (oiketai,) but after 
their freedom was granted them, they were dovlot, {douloi,) not be- 
ing, like the former, a part of their master's estate, but only 
obliged to some grateful acknowledgments and small services, 
such as were required of the ftiionfoi, to whom they were in some 
few things inferior ; but seldom arrived to the dignity of citizens, 
especially if they had received their freedom from a private per- 
son, and not upon a public account."! This testimony is the 
more reliable from the manner in which it is introduced. Bishop 
Potter wrote his antiquities upward of a century ago, before the 
modern discussions about slavery, and therefore without any bias 
from these ; his work is one simply of antiquarian research, and 
in giving an account of slavery as it existed in Athens, he makes 
incidentally the remark quoted above. He is not trying to settle 
the meaning of dnHo; — that does not seem to have been in his 
mind — but in writing a history of Athenian slavery, he finds 
that there were two classes of sexvants, one called oiyJiui,, who 
were absolute slaves, and another called dovlm^ of which were quoti- 
dam slaves, — -freed-men or servants under limited obligations, — 
a class lower than the native born citizen, but higher than the slave. 
He states the fact, and gives his authority by citations from the 
Greek classics. But this fact does not rest upon the sole authority 
of Archbishop Potter. Escheyiburg in his Manual of Classical Lit- 

* Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, and St. John, History of the Man- 
ners and Customs of Ancient Greece. f Vol. 1, p. G8. 

4 



26 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

erature — a work of high authority — makes nearly the same state- 
ment, " The slaves," he says, using the term dovlot generically, 
" were of different sorts, those belonging to the public, and those 
belonging to private citizens (oixsiut). The latter were com- 
pletely in the power of the master, and were often treated with 
great severity. Yet they sometimes purchased freedom by their 
own earnings, or received it by gift as a reward for merit. Public 
slaves also were often set at liberty, when they had rendered the 
state some valuable service. Freedmen very seldom, if ever, 
obtained the rights of citizens, and loere still termed doUoi.'^* 

Other standard writers on Greek antiquities give the same view. 
Prof Edwards of Andover — who has written the most thorough 
and elaborate article upon Slavery in Ancient Greece which has 
yet appeared in this country, an article which has been repub- 
lished and extensively circulated in Great Britain — adopts with- 
out qualification the statement of Potter that the dov/.oi were not 
a part of their master's estate, but were only required to render 
some small services, and that the name dovXoc was applied to slaves 
^^ after their freedom was granted the7n.^^f 

Anacharsis, describing slavery amotig the Greeks, says : — 

" The laws gave protection to the slave ; but when slaves were intelligent or 
had promising talents, interest guarded them better than the law ; they enriched 
themselves by obtaining a part of the salary they received from one and an- 
other. These profits being multiplied, put them in a position to procure pro- 
tection, to live in revolting luxury, and to join insolent pretensions to base 

ideas No one could injure another's slave, under severe penalties. 

.... When a slave was freed, he did not enter into the class of citizens, but 
of domicilii, who resembled citizens in tlieir liberty, and slaves in the little 
consideration they enjoyed. The domicilii to the number of about ten thousand, 
were strangers fixed with their families in Athens, for the most part employed 
in trades or in the marine service, protected by the government, without par- 
ticipating in it ; free but independent ; useful to the republic, which dreaded 
them because it dreaded liberty when separated from a love of country; de- 
spised by the people who were jealous of tlie distinctions of citizenship. These 
had each to choose from the citizens a patron who became responsible for their 
conduct, and paid into the treastiry a yearly tribute of twelve drachmas for the 
head of the family and six for their children. They lost their property when 
they did not comply with the first, and their liberty if they did not comply with 
the second ; but if they rendered signal service to the state, they obtained ex- 
emption from tribute."! 

XenopJwn, in his Athenian Republic, says : — "The licentiousness of slaves 
and of aliens at Athens is excessive ; none are allowed to strike tliem ; nor ■will 
the slave yield to the freeman." .... He also speaks of the importance of 
" an equality of rights to slaves and freemen." 

St. John speaks of a class of serfs in Crete, lying off the coast of Phrygia, 
analogous to the domicilii of Anacharsis ; who "were compelled to furnish the 
body of the citizens a certain sum of money, together with a part of their flocks 

and herds and agricultural produce These were sufficiently numerous 

and powerful to inspire their masters with dread." .... In Thessaly, also, 
there was a large class of " voluntary villeins'^ who cultivated the land subject 
to a yearly tribute.§ 

* p. 180. t Bib. Rep., Vol. V, p. 155. t Travels, Vol. 11. 

§ Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece, Vol. Ill, pp. 62, 64. 



Slavery among the Greeks. 27 

The same author gives an extended vocabulary of names applied to slaves 
according to their condition. With reference to the distinction refen-ed to by 
Potter, he says : — " Chrysippos makes a distinction between oixi-frji and SoUKoi, 
but without much foundation ;" but he then adds, " the term oixitiqi [and the 
same would hold true, therefore, of hoii%oi\ was applied to any person employed 
about a house, whether slave or free"* 

Some lexicographers, we are aware, regard slave as the primi- 
tive meaning of dovXog ; and where authorities differ, we would 
not hazard an opinion. But the facts adduced above cannot be 
gainsaid ; and these fully establish our position on the subject, 
viz., that so various were the classes of servants among the 
Greeks, and so various the uses of the term ^ocAoc, that the appli- 
cation of that term to Onesimus by no means proves that he was 
a slave. Is not the presumption rather that he was a servant in 
some other capacity ? especially as it is intimated in the 18th 
verse that he was in debt to Philemon, which would have been 
more likely if he was a hired servant, than if he was absolutely 
a slave. We do not affirm that he was not a slave ; but it would 
be well for those who are eager to testify their regard for Apos- 
tolic example by sending back fugitives from slavery, and espe- 
cially for those political journalists who read homilies upon this 
as a Christian duty, to settle first the point whether Onesimus 
ever was a slave. Till this is done we might rest the argument, 
for the burden of proof lies on the other side ; but we are willing 
to waive this advantage and proceed to a second query. 

Did Paul send back Onesimus authoritatively to his master ? 
We will admit, for the sake of- the argument, that Onesimus was 
a slave. Did the Apostle use any authority or coercion in order to 
return him to his master? There is no evidence that Paul even 
urged Onesimus to return to Philemon. Nothing could be plainer 
than that the return of Onesimus was voluntary. Paul, himself 
a prisoner, could use no force to restore a fugitive servant to his 
master. Paul was neither a commissioner from the court, nor a 
marshal, nor a deputy marshal, nor a szi6-commissioner, empow- 
ered to summon the posse comitatus to arrest a fugitive, and under 
a thousand dollar bond to have him delivered over to his master; 
nor was he under the temptation of a five dollar fee to inform of 
a fugitive and secure his arrest. Whatever Paul did to promote 
the return of Onesimus to Philemon was simply in the way of 
advice and of friendly offices between the two. The phrase 
" whom 1 have sent again," requires nothing more than this ; for 
Paul uses the same of his fellow-laborers, who were at different 
times his willing messengers to the churches, e. g.^ "I suppose it 
necessary to serid to you Epaphroditus my brother, and com- 
panion in labor." (Phil, ii, 25.) " All my state shall Tychicus de- 



* Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece, Vol. Ill, p. 27. 



^ The Fugitive Slave Law. 

clare to you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and 
fellow-servant in the Lord : whom T have se?it to you for the 
same purpose, that he might know your estate." (Col. iv, 7, 8.) 
There is no evidence that Onesimus was sent in a manner differ- 
ent from that in which Epaphroditus and Tychicus were sent by 
Paul upon errands of love. It is evident, that Paul did not at 
once send back Onesimus to his master ; — not till Onesimus was 
converted, and had been for some time " profitable" or useful to 
himself as a ministering brother. He does not seem to have 
thought of sending him back until this change took place in his 
character. He did not, therefore, send him back simply because 
he was a "fugitive held to service" in another state, nor did he 
send him by authority or any manner of constraint. 

The whole letter of Paul to Philemon is entirely consistent 
with the supposition that Onesimus had proposed to return. This 
he may have been led to do by the change which had taken 
place in his character, causing him to feel that he had wronged 
Philemon by robbery or fraud, or by some abuse of trust for which 
he desired now to make reparation ; or he may have wished to 
rejoin his family and acquaintances at Colosse, or he may have 
been pinched for the means of living in a strange city. It is 
quite evident that Onesimus went back willingly or he would not 
have gone at all — for nobody compelled him to return. The 
utmost that Paul could do was to urge him to go back, and there 
is no proof that he did even this, or anything more than to second 
the proposal of Onesimus himself to return. Paul undertook to 
negotiate with Philemon for the return of Onesimus in order to 
make his return easy and pleasant. Here again it lies with those 
who argue from this example for the compulsory return of fugi- 
tives — to give the proof. 

Our third inquiry is. In what character and for what intefit 
was Onesimus sent back to Philemon? Was he sent back to be 
again a dodlog, to live in the same capacity as before? Did Paid 
send him back to be made a slave ? To answer this question 
satisfactorily we need only to read with care a (ew sentences of 
the letter to Philemon. " Wherefore," says the Apostle, " though 
I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is con- 
venient" — though I might command what is proper to be done 
toward Onesimus, and even detain him here with me, " yet for 
love's sake, I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the 
aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ," — an old man, a 
prisoner, might reasonably expect favors from a Christian friend, 
— " I beseech thee" as a personal favor, for my son Onesimus, 
" whom I have begotten in my bonds" — who has been converted 
by attending on my preaching in the prison, " which in time 
past was to thee unprofitable," — a negligent and a fraudulent ser- 
vant — " but now profitable," disposed to be useful *' to thee and 



Was Onesimus sent back to Slavery 1 29 

to me : whom I have sent again ; thou therefore receive him, that 
is mine own bowels" — one dear to me as a son, — " whom I would 
have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have minis- 
tered to me in the bonds of the gospel," rendering such friendly 
offices as you yourself would do if here. " But without thy 
mind would I do nothing ;" I would not keep him without thy 
free consent; "that thy benefit" — the good which your servant 
would do to me — "should not be as it were of necessity, on your 
part, but willingly y This language does not imply that Phile- 
mon had a hold upon Onesimus as his slave, for it is such lan- 
guage as one gentleman of honor and delicacy would use toward 
another with respect to a servant in any capacity. Suppose the 
servant of an old friend of the writer in New Haven should come 
to New York and enter into his service as a domestic ; and while 
in that relation should become converted, and then should ac- 
knowledge that he or she had left New Haven wrongfully, in vio- 
lation of a contract, or by dissimulation and fraud. Suppose it 
was a girl or a boy who- had been bound out to that friend and 
whose time had not yet expired. Would it be honorable in the 
writer to keep the servant in such circumstances? Should he 
not write to his friend and say, " Your servant is at my house, is 
much changed in character and of great value to me ; but being 
now willing to return to you, I would on no account detain him 
or her without consulting your pleasure." The language of Paul 
is perfectly consistent with the supposition that Onesimus was 
not a slave, but a freedman held by contract to certain services, 
which by running away he had failed to perform. 

Paul next suggests that the temporary loss of Onesimus may 
in the end be a gain to Philemon, since he will now return with 
a much improved character — " For perhaps he therefore departed 
for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever." — But how 
should he receive him ? " Not now as a servant," not as a slave 
surely, not even as a 8ovlog, a servant bound in any sense, "but 
above a dovlov — a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much 
more to thee, both in the flesh — as a part of thy domestic estab- 
lishment — and in the Lord." Whatever Onesimus had before 
been as a doUoi^ that he was not to be hereafter. " If thou count 
me therefore a partner, — or an intimate friend — receive him as my- 
self." Paul wished moreover to have the past cancelled, so that 
Onesimus might be introduced to the confidence of Philemon, 
and so he adds, " If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, 
put that on mine account ; I Paul have written it with mine own 
hand, I will repay it." Is it not probable that Onesimus had 
previously sustained the relation of a confidential servant, in 
which he had been unfaithful, and now Paul would not have 
him required even to make good that deficiency of service, but 
received as a brother in Christ ? It is palpable that Paul in send- 



30 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

ing back Onesimus did not eren dream that he should become a 
slave. Whatever relation he may hitherto have sustained to 
Philemon, in whatever capacity he may have served him, it was 
the wish of Paul that he should not be treated as in that inferior 
relation, but received as a Christian brother and an equal. Such is 
the plain sense of the letter ; such the impression which it makes 
on every candid mind. This is also the interpretation of the 
ablest Biblical commentators, such as UeWette of Germany and 
Mr. Barnes of our own country. The view of the latter is so 
appropriate that we will give it in his own words. 

" It would be impossible for Philemon to comply with the wishes breathed 
forth in this letter, and meet exactly the desires of Paul in the case, and yet 
retain Onesimus as a slave, or regard him as property, as a ' chattel' — as a 
' thing.' For if he had been formerly a slave ; if this is the fair meaning of 
the word SwXoj — then this is expressly declared. Thus in v. 16 he is com- 
manded to receive him not now as a servant — ovxin wj bovXav, If he had been 
a slave before he did not ivish that he should be received as such now, 
or regarded as such any longer. How could Philemon comply with the 
wish of the Apostle and yet regard Onesimus as a slave ? The very at- 
tempt to do it would be directly in the face of the expressed desire of Paul, 
and every moment he held him as such he would be disregarding his wishes. 
He desired him to receive and treat him, in all respects, as a Christian brother 
— as one redeemed, as a man : — above a servant, a brother beloved! How could 
he do tliis, and yet regard and treat him as a slave ? Is it treating one as a 
Christian brother to hold him as property ; to deprive him of freedom ; to con- 
sider him an article of merchandize ; to exact his labor without compensation ? 
Would the man himself who makes another a slave suppose that he was treated 
as a Christian brother, if he were reduced to that condition ? Would he feel 
that his son was so regarded if he was made a slave ? There are no ways of re- 
conciling these things. It is impossible for a master to regard his slave as, in 
the proper and full sense of the phrase, ' a CJiristian brother.'' He may, indeed, 
esteem him highly as a Christian ; he may treat him with kindness ; he may 
show him many favors ; hut he regards him also as his slave ; and this fact 
makes a difference wide " as from the center thrice to the utmost pole" in his 
feelings toward him and other Christians. He is 7iot on a level with them as a 
Christian. Tlie notion of his being his slave mingles with all his feelings to- 
ward him, and gives a coloring to all his views of him. He can not but feel, 
if he himself is under the influence of religion, that that slave, if he were 
treated in al] respects as a Christian, would be as free as himself; would have 
a right to his time, and skill, and liberty ; would be permitted to form his own 
plans, and to enjoy the avails of his own labor ; and would be secure from the 
possibility of being sold. 

" Suppose now that Paul, after a short interval, had actually come to the 
residence of Philemon, as he expected to, and had found him regarding and 
treating Onesimus as a slave, Avould he have felt that Philemon had complied 
with his wishes? Did he ask this of him? Did he not request just the con- 
trary ? Would it not be natural for him to say to him that he had not received 
him as he wished him to ? And how would Philemon reply to this ?" 

Paul desired Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would re- 
ceive himself, or his son. If Paul had visited Philemon, would 
Philemon have clapped chains upon him and have sent him out 
into the field to work under the lash ? or would he have held 
him to any sort of compulsory service ? Would Philemon have 



Who was PhileQUon ? 31 

given such a reception to Timothy the adopted son of Paul ? 
No more could he have treated Onesimus as a slave. 

Our last inquiry relates to the character of Philemon, to whom 
Onesimus was returned. This is an important link in the chain 
of argument. If Onesimus was a fugitive slave and was sent 
back as such, — which we do not at all admit, — to what sori of a 
master was he returned ? Philemon was a Christian ; a convert 
of Paul, and an intimate personal friend of the Apostle. In this 
very letter Paul requests him to prepare for him a lodging against 
his next visit to Colosse. Paul knew him well, and had so much 
confidence in him as a kind and candid Christian man that he 
was willing to trust Onesimus in his hands. Onesimus knew 
him also, and was willing to go back and to put himself at the 
disposal of Philemon. If then Onesimus was a slave, the fact 
that he was sent back, with his owti consent, to such a master, 
gives no warrant for sending back by force every fiigitive slave 
to any and every master. The example of Paul jidmits of no 
such latitude. 

We have now examined the four sections of the' Fugitive 
Slave Bill of the New Testament. Under the first section it is 
doubtful whether the bill treats at all of fugitive slaves. The 
term dovlog does not prove it, and there is no evidence that Onesi- 
mus was a slave. Under the second section, it is plain that no 
authority or coercion was used to restore the fugitive slave, if 
such he was. 

Under the third section, it is evident, that the fugitive was not 
sent back to be again a slave, if such he was before, but to be a 
freeman, a friend, and a brother in Christ : While from the fourth 
section it appears, that he was sent back to one who recognized 
his own obligations to Christ, and who would treat him atjcord- 
ing to the law of justice and the kind spirit of the gospel. 

We are quite willing that this New Testament Bill should be 
compared section by section with any Fugitive Slave Law of a 
later date. We do not think there has been any improvement 
upon the original bill as drafted by Moses and illustrated by Paul 
— though we are living in a free country and in the middle of 
the nineteenth century. Upon that bill we take our stand. That 
is our law as Christians in relation to this matter. And now 
what is the utmost that the example of Paul requires or even 
warrants with respect to the surrender of fugitives from service? 
Admitting that Onesimus was a slave, — of which there is no 
adequate proof — what is the utmost which that example requires 
of a Christian citizen ? A fugitive comes to a Christian citizen, 
one who is a Christian minister, (for we wish a definite and strong 
case,) and expresses a desire to return to his master ; that master is 
known to be a benevolent and Christian man ; the slave is quite 



32 7 Vie Fugitive Slave Law. 

willing to trust himself in his hands, but wishes this minister to aid 
his return and to intercede for him with his master that he may 
be freed from certain liabilities. The minister complies with the 
request, and sends him back to his master, his own friend, with 
the earnest request that he will receive and treat him as a Chris- 
tian, — ^just as he would treat himself. In such a case he might 
perhaps feel that he was imitating Paul. But suppose a man 
comes to him and says ; 

" Sir, I am a run-away slave, will you not help me to a place 
of safety." 

" A run-away slave ! And do you come to me, a minister of 
the gospel, to countenance you in running away from the mas- 
ter whom God has placed over you ? It is my duty to send you 
back as Paul sent back Onesimus." 

"Ah sir," he replies, " but I am a Christian, and for the love of 
the Savior who bought us with his blood, I pray you have pity 
upon me." 

" A Christian indeed ! And do you not know that it is the 
duty of servants to obey their masters, and that it is your duty 
to return to yours?" 

" But, Sir, my master is cruel, and I carry with me the marks 
of the lash and of the brand ; I can not have the Bible ; I am 
torn away from my wife and children ; how can I go back to be 
whipped and tortured and made wretched ? I had rather die 
first." 

" Well, if you will not be persuaded, I must try other means ;" 
— so seizing him by the collar, this minister of Christ calls to 
the bystanders, the posse comitatus, " What, ho ! here is a run- 
away slave, help me to secure him for his master." And with 
that they bind the struggling fugitive with ropes, and drag him 
to a commissioner to await the appearance of a claimant ; and 
having thus discharged his duty to " Conscience and the Consti- 
tution," he draws upon the treasury of the United States for five 
dollars and expenses as by law provided. Now is he not a saint ? 
Does he not walk in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul ? Is he 
not a glorious representative of the spirit of Christianity? Is he 
not a worthy follower and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ? — 
The slave indeed expected different treatment from a minister of 
Christ, but he did not know how much light has been shed upon 
the gospel duty of catching negroes, by the discussions of poli- 
ticians and other learned and godly men. 

Does any one believe that the man who wrote this epistle to 
Philemon would be a slave-catcher under modern law? Would 
Paul have laid hands upon James Hamlet to force him back to 
slavery ? He would have rotted in jail first. In the time of 
Paul, the Roman law respecting fugitives was stringent and se- 
vere. A runaway slave could not be lawfully received or har- 



A Slave-catching Minister. 33 

bored ; to conceal him was fiirtum — theft. The master was 
entitled to pursue the fugitive, and it was the duty of all the 
authorities to aid in his arrest ; there was also a class of men 
called ftigitivarii, — a despicable class, as such men must ever 
be, — whose business it was to recover fugitives; and yet Paul 
retained Onesimus for some time as his own servant, and finally 
sent him back only when he was willing to go. As Christians 
we dare not, in this matter, go beyond the example of the Apos- 
tle Paul. 

But what if the laws require us to go farther and make it penal 
for us to recognize a fugitive slave as a man and a Christian, and 
to minister to his necessities. How shall we regard such a law ? 
That is a question which every man must answer for himself ac- 
cording to the light which God has given him. We will answer 
it by asking another. The constitution of the republic of Chili 
establishes the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of the 
state to the exclusion of all others. Suppose that there was such 
an article in the Constitution of the United States — how ought 
we to regard it ? Suppose the law of the land, instead of guard- 
ing religious liberty, should require all citizens to worship accord- 
ing to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church — how ought we 
to act under such a law ? Or suppose that Congress should pass 
an act legalizing polygamy or kidnapping, should we feel bound 
in conscience to carry out its provisions ? These questions may 
help to show that not every thing which is passed into a human 
statute is binding on the conscience before God. But how shall 
we act toward an unrighteous law — a law demanding what con- 
science and the word of God forbid ? We know how the Puri- 
tans acted under the oppressive measures of Laud and the tyran- 
nical Stuarts, and we are accustomed to praise them, as does 
Hume, as the fathers of civil and religious liberty. We know 
how the martyrs and confessors of the Christian faith in all ages, 
have acted under laws that did violence to their religious convic- 
tions. These have been orderly and peaceable citizens, support- 
ing government, making no rebellion, but choosing to suffer the 
penalty of unrighteous laws, rather than to sin against God by 
obeying such laws. Nearly all that is noble and heroic in history, 
nearly all that has been accomplished for the emancipation and 
the progress of the race, stands connected with the decision, the 
self-denial and the suffering of these conscientious, these "obsti- 
nate" men. As to what is duty toward fugitives from slavery, 
let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. The laws of 
the free states know no such thing as a slave ; and for our part, 
living where personal liberty and life are made secure, we shall 
never acknowledge any man in the streets of our abode to be 
anything but a man, having the same right to walk the streets 
and breathe the air, the same right to protection in life, liberty. 

5 



34 The Fugitive Slave Law. 

and the pursuit of happiness, that God has given us. If to act 
on such a principle be an iniquity to be punished by the judge, 
then do we accept the penaUy; saying with Paul before Festiis, 
"for if I be an oifender, or have committed anything worthy of 
death, I refuse not to die." The fugitive shall have bread; he 
shall have money; he shall have shelter; though at the cost of 
fines and imprisonment. 

Some will denounce such language as treason, and will thereat 
fly into paroxysms of eloquence about the Constitution and the 
Union. We are quite willing to take our stand by Prof. Stuart, 
and say, " In such a case, obedience to a human law is criuje ; it 
is treason, against the Majesty of Heaven and earth." The Pro- 
fessor applauds Dr. Palmer of Charleston, S. C, for having told 
Gov. Hayne, " that he should not obey the law" which forbade 
him to teach the blacks to read ; a law which the Professor thor- 
oughly denounces as " unlawful, anti-Christian," and "an inva- 
sion of the high prerogatives of Heaven's court." In this matter 
of treason, therefore, we find ourselves in excellent company both 
at the North and at the South. Bnt is it treason simply to refuse 
to obey a civil law, while we offer no violence, stir up no rebell- 
ion, but accept its penalty and thus render a passive obedience? 
The Quakers have uniformly refused to obey any law relating 
to military service ; yet the (Quakers are everywhere most 
peaceable and orderly citizens. The Constitution itself is an 
amendable instrument, and in order to procure its amendment, if 
that is required, we must discuss the bearing of laws enacted to 
carry out its provisions, and if those laws are opposed to con- 
science, then must we peaceably but firmly oppose such laws, and 
suffer till the hour of full redress. 

Some are perplexed because they do not find in the epistle to 
Philemon an express prohibition or denunciation of slavery, inas- 
much as the epistle throughout borders upon the subject, and the 
occasion would seem to have been a fit one for expressing the 
mind of the Spirit with regard to this institution. But if Phile- 
mon was not in any proper sense of the term a slave-holder, there 
was no occasion to advert to the subject of slavery in a letter to 
him ; and even if he was a slaveholder, would not tlie apostle have 
been less likely to discuss the general subject of slavery in a fa- 
miliar letter to a friend than in his more formal letters to the 
churches? In this letter the Apostle plainly teaches Philemon 
his own duty, and gives him instructions which, if followed, 
would soon cause him to cease all connection with slavery; and it 
was doubtless better to approach him thus upon the side of per- 
sonal friendship and Christian principle and affection, than to give 
him an argument against slavery in the abstract. Christ and the 
Apostles were more concerned to introduce principles into the 
world than to apply those principles to specific institutions ; the 



Conscience and Law. 35 

application of principles was left to time ; they were infused into 
society like leaven, and the progress of light and inquiry makes 
more palpable the meaning of tlie precepts of the gospel and the 
extent of their application. It is so wuh slavery. The princi- 
ples of the gospel are opposed to it. Its doctrine of the unity and 
the essential equality of the human race — the doctrine of a true 
and universal brotherhood among all men made of one blood by 
one Father; its doctrine of redemption for all alike, and of the 
absolute equality of all believers, in rights and privih^ges; its pre- 
cepts of charity, of justice, and of humility; its golden rule, and 
its doctrine of man's immortality — these are all diametrically op- 
posed to slavery, and these can not prevail without overthrowing 
slavery, wherever and however it exists ; therefore it is that 
slavery hates the Bible, and therefore it is that we must oppose 
slavery with the Bible. But first of all we must retrieve the Bible 
itself from the dishonor put upon it by those who would use its 
toleration of evils in remote ages, because of the hardness of meti's 
hearts, to bolster up oppression in this nineteenth century. Let 
all Christians act up to the Bible in their spirit and conduct to- 
ward all mankind, and by personal holiness and impartial benevo- 
lence conspire to render complete and universal the reign, already 
begun, of truth, liberty and love — the reign of the Redeemer, who 
came, according to the sublime promises of inspired prophecy, to 
preach deliverance to the captives and the opening of the prison 
doors to them that are bound. 



54 W 




•> o 






» - ,aO 

.0 




1^ . t • 





























'bV 









V »L^1% -o. 



. .* ^ 









> ♦ 4? «>>■, •'^ 




%.^" '' 













• «o 















V 














^^ ^*^-* .# 












%/ 



i^' "- /,-^;;'.% '°'5^^'> y.-^i--« 




